/m/awards

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Tigers have a shot at getting the MVP, Cy Young and Rookie of the Year in the same year. My very quick check indicates that this has never been done before. Made even harder is that it is a different person for each award.

Tells you how much I've ignored the NL this year to have not noticed Fernandez. Wow. 2.23 ERA as a 20 year old with 9.9 K/9 and 3.0 BB/9 and 0.5 HR/9 suggests it isn't an illusion. 165 2/3 IP so far, wonder when the Marlins will shut him down for the year? Wonder if voters will miss him due to the 11-6 record, which is extremely impressive given he is with the Marlins. He isn't slowing either - last 10 starts he has a 1.34 ERA (!). Sheesh, now that is impressive as I have to figure all ML teams know exactly what he has and have full scouting reports by that point yet he adjusts and keeps getting better. Puig has been 'wow' but Fernandez is WOW.

Yeah, Fernandez sort of snuck up on me. About three weeks ago I finally decided that his crazy-good numbers might not be a fluke and actually watched him pitch. And WOW is right. I hope he doesn't go all Mark Prior on us, because he is great to watch right now.

Robothal is fairly reasonable on most of these. Still has the 'MVP must come from a winner because...' thing, but that's so common that it's not really worth complaining about any individual guy believing it.

Basically, this reminds me once again of just how absurd Trout was last year FOR A WINNING TEAM. Who had been terrible until he was called up and then performed very well. Sheesh.

It never occurred to me before, but what is the roster move when a team shuts down a young pitcher for no other reason than an inning limit? I suppose it doesn't matter most of the time because it's September and the rosters are expanded. But say you shut down a pitcher in August. Do you make up some fake injury and put him on the DL? Or do you have to option him to the minors?

#2, #5 - My buddy was raving about Jose Fernandez, but he usually parrots what the talking sports heads say so I paid little attention. Then I was over his place watching the Nats vs Marlins with Fernandez pitching and yes, WOW! Now that I know, I'm prohibited from even watching the guy because MLB.tv blacks out your local team even when they play away. Nuts! But he is a very good story in an otherwise forgettable season for the Marlins.

Which is why I have a big problem with the voters saying that they can't vote an MVP to a player who is not on a contending team. Why the hell not? If he's "valuable" then the team surrounding him isn't particularly relevant; it's about the player, not the team.

Moreover, a solid performer should get extra credit for excelling when surrounded by turkeys, thus strengthening his MVP case.

Regarding AL MVP, as I mentioned in the Heyman thread, Poz argued last year that players on losing teams who put up excellent stats should be celebrated, not mocked, as it is tougher to get motivated to play hard every day down the stretch when your team is out of contention.

The headline rings false; it seems to me like most of the awards are wrapped up. The MVPs will be Cabrera and McCutchen, the Cy Youngs will be Scherzer and Kershaw (Scherzer still might lose it if he collapses these last couple weeks, though), the ROYs are Myers and Puig. I'll be surprised if any of those guys don't win those awards and an injury or faceplant-level collapse isn't involved.

Basically, this reminds me once again of just how absurd Trout was last year FOR A WINNING TEAM. Who had been terrible until he was called up and then performed very well. Sheesh.

Actually, isn't it a fairly similar situation this season with Puig? Remember early in the year when the Dodgers were 12 games under .500 and everybody was saying Mattingly was going to be fired? Didn't that basically turn around when they got Puig? I don't know that it's an exact 1-to-1 correlation but it's pretty close, isn't it? In which case, I not only can see making a case for Puig as ROY, but he's probably going to get a few MVP votes as well.

The headline rings false; it seems to me like most of the awards are wrapped up. The MVPs will be Cabrera and McCutchen, the Cy Youngs will be Scherzer and Kershaw (Scherzer still might lose it if he collapses these last couple weeks, though), the ROYs are Myers and Puig. I'll be surprised if any of those guys don't win those awards and an injury or faceplant-level collapse isn't involved.

I think he's saying that they're still up in the air for him.

And that does seem to be the case. He says he is leaning Cabrera but is finding it harder and harder to explain why not Trout. He says McCutcheon is the favorite but the final three weeks could still swing things for him. He says Scherzer looked like a lock but Darvish is rapidly closing in (and he even gives a shout out to Sale who has a very strong case, but will certainly not win). And so forth.

And good for him. A number of these races are reasonably close and it really does depend on how things shake out.

[11] That is a narrative but it is false. Puig had been playing for over two weeks before the team started playing well. Returns of Hanley and Greinke were closer to June 22 (the date the Dodger's season turned). That said, Puig has been a very good contributer.

Actually, isn't it a fairly similar situation this season with Puig? Remember early in the year when the Dodgers were 12 games under .500 and everybody was saying Mattingly was going to be fired? Didn't that basically turn around when they got Puig? I don't know that it's an exact 1-to-1 correlation but it's pretty close, isn't it? In which case, I not only can see making a case for Puig as ROY, but he's probably going to get a few MVP votes as well.

This is definitely the narrative argument for Puig, but the problem with it is that (i) the Dodgers continued to suck when Puig was awesome, and (ii) Puig has been good-not-great during the Dodgers huge run.

Puig debuted on June 3, when the Dodgers were 23-32. Puig pounded the ball in his first 17 games, hitting .455/.478/.773, but the Dodgers went just 7-10.

The Dodgers started their run on June 22, and Puig has hit .314/.388/.498 as the Dodgers have gone 51-17. That's still really good, but it's not much better than Andre Ethier's .291/.385/.470. Hanley Ramirez, meanwhile, has hit .336/.383/.646 during the streak.

Regarding AL MVP, as I mentioned in the Heyman thread, Poz argued last year that players on losing teams who put up excellent stats should be celebrated, not mocked, as it is tougher to get motivated to play hard every day down the stretch when your team is out of contention.

Well, but it hurts your team (worse draft spot), so from a value standpoint... really Yuniesky Betancourt should have won one or two.

Do the writers have to spell candidates' names or is there an All-Star type ballot? I would assume that at least a few scribes, like a seeming majority of BTF posters, do not actually know how to spell McCutchen's name.

Which is why I have a big problem with the voters saying that they can't vote an MVP to a player who is not on a contending team. Why the hell not? If he's "valuable" then the team surrounding him isn't particularly relevant; it's about the player, not the team.

I'm surprised how many intelligent people here (and over at Fangraphs) have trouble understanding why an MVP award should almost never go to a player from a losing team. You're acting like it doesn't make sense - but I think you're confusing "making sense" with "being unfair". And I think you're completely losing sight of the fact that baseball is a team sport.

Of course Trout can't control his GM, teammates and pitchers, and thus wastes away on a .450 Angels team. Of course Miggy is lucky that he is on the juggernaut Tigers with full support from Dombrowski and Ilitch. It is completely unfair.

But the point is that the Angels TEAM season has not generated ANY value: it is a train wreck. Even if Trout is one of the few bright spots, he can't be credited for it: there is no value to distribute, because this Angel season hasn't provided any to either Anaheim fans or MLB as a whole. WAR fanatics reduce baseball to a sport for individuals, and think the point of baseball is to win "player games". They're wrong: the point of baseball is (a) winning team seasons, (b) making it to October, and (c) winning the WS. When your team wins only 70 games, even while you're responsible for 10 of them, your season can reasonably be classified as for naught. Just ask the fans. (If you win 70 games and hit 75 homers, thus providing fans and league with awe and amazement, the indivudal accomplishment may transcend that of the team, you may have a case. But Trout hasn't done anything like that.)

Tiger fans, on the other hand, will fondly remember the 2013 season. The Tigers made an impact this year. They hit their targets. They're playing in October, which is all you can ask for in September. Cabrera has been transcendent as a hitter. Their season has generated a lot of value to both their fans and MLB as a whole, and Cabrera has been by far the biggest source of that value.

If Trout played on KC or Baltimore, I could support his MVP candidacy. While it's improbable the Orioles or the Royals will make the postseason, at least they were relevant for most of the season. Their team season had value, because there was hope, and Trout would have been a big part of that. As it is, he's having one of the best wasted seasons in recent history. Again.

I'm surprised how many intelligent people here (and over at Fangraphs) have trouble understanding why an MVP award should almost never go to a player from a losing team. You're acting like it doesn't make sense - but I think you're confusing "making sense" with "being unfair". And I think you're completely losing sight of the fact that baseball is a team sport.

Because it doesn't make sense.

No matter how you argue it, it's still an individual award. Team record shouldn't factor into it one bit... or if anything 15th on the list of important factors (about 4 spots ahead of WPA).

A players value, is how good he is, it doesn't matter if his team sucks, or is great. It's how much value he provided to the team in the win/loss column. Not how much value he provides to them in the playoff chase.

They're wrong: the point of baseball is (a) winning team seasons, (b) making it to October, and (c) winning the WS.

That's a rather narrow view. I suspect John Updike would disagree.

If you win 70 games and hit 75 homers, thus providing fans and league with awe and amazement, the indivudal accomplishment may transcend that of the team, you may have a case. But Trout hasn't done anything like that.

I think Trout has provided plenty of people with awe and amazement of various types.

Oscar, I understand the argument against Trout for MVP, as do the vast majority of the people you'll encounter here (or at Fangraphs). Said view just seems as irrational to me as the opposing one apparently is to you. What you wrote isn't new. You're not going to gain converts here. You're just antagonizing, though in a less hostile way than some of other non-believers here. We're at an impasse. Accept it.

I'll also add that as a non-Angels fan who has watched a few dozen Angels games this year and watches Quick Pitch fairly often, Trout leaves me awed and amazed all the time, as much as anyone in the game. That his value comes from lots of different skills doesn't matter to me.

If Trout played on KC or Baltimore, I could support his MVP candidacy.... As it is, he's having one of the best wasted seasons in recent history. Again.

If you'd be okay with a KC Royal (4 games out of the last wild card entering today) winning the MVP this season, it seems a little hard to argue that Trout's season was wasted last year, when the Angels finished 4 games out of the last wild card (and won one more regular season game than Miguel Cabrera's Tigers did).

Here's my real question: what is the value of having an award that is so utterly dependent on team record? What does the award TELL us?

It tells us who was the best player on a team that made the playoffs? If so, why not just vote for the best player overall and for those who care about the sub-category they can go ahead and look to see which playoff-maker got the most votes.

It tells us who had the best year on a team that made the playoffs (but not by too much)? Ugh.

Or, it tells us who had the best narrative? But: why would we give an award for narrative? I mean, I know why the baseball writers might want to give an award for narrative - because it juices their copy - but why should we as fans buy into that notion?

It just seems goofy to me. I don't think it's irrational - I just think it values some stuff a whole lot that seems pretty unimportant to me.

I understand the wish to reward a good narrative. It's easy to look up statistics from the past - naming a certain guy MVP is a way of telling posterity about what you thought was interesting and exciting that year. But no writer will ever admit frankly that this is what he's doing.

I don't mean to be antagonizing - I'm genuinely worried that people who I consider my intellectual brethren (I've been a Primate since 2001 and have been into sabermetrics since 1990) continue to fall for the "player wins" fallacy and as a consequence are putting Trout in the discussion THIS YEAR. (Last year, as Kiko points out, he had a much better case, also because Cabrera's case was worse.)

I know we're taught to fight the media's ingrained beliefs about baseball, but I believe the writers usually get it right here, unless you subscribe to the view that baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. What people downplay as "narrative" is actually the answer to this question: "who was the conquering hero of this season, given that the goal of the season is to lead your troops to October?"

Does Trout fill me with awe and amazement? He does, even if I find watching his achievements rather pointless. He is on track to have a great career, he is one of the best young players ever, and this makes him at least a bit relevant, so it wouldn't offend me to see him somewhere on the ballot. (Is a down ballot vote for somebody on a non-contending team acceptable? Yes. I would've voted for Barry Bonds in 2001 or 2004 if the Giants had 70 wins.)

No matter how you argue it, it's still an individual award. Team record shouldn't factor into it one bit

Curious: If I phrase it as "Best Player Award, regardless of his relevance to the outcome of the season", would you accept that?

Edit: Baldrick, the answer to your question (from my perspective) is in the second paragraph.

Curious: If I phrase it as "Best Player Award, regardless of his relevance to the outcome of the season", would you accept that?

I don't see the difference.

It's the league MVP... Most Valuable Player. BY absolute definition that means the single player who brings the most absolute value to the table, regardless of the quality of his team. The only argument at this point could be relative to how much he costs/salary(which nobody on the planet has used as an argument, but seriously that is a more important consideration than how his team fared)

The league MVP should be voted on the best player in the league. It's not that complicated. Who is individually the single most valuable player to his teams won loss record..... Not to his teams playoff chances... Not to his teams ability to be a playoff contender, while not being so good of a team that they walk away with the title.... Too many people want to complicate this single individual award, that is about an individual's performance relative to league.

It's the league MVP... Most Valuable Player. BY absolute definition that means the single player who brings the most absolute value to the table, regardless of the quality of his team. The only argument at this point could be relative to how much he costs/salary(which nobody on the planet has used as an argument, but seriously that is a more important consideration than how his team fared)

Another argument is that not all wins are equally "valuable" to the team financially. A 7 WAR player on a 93 win team might be more valuable financially than a 10 WAR player on a 75 win team. Of course Wins 87-93 might be more valuable to the Dodgers than to the Pirates financially as well. I guess this argues to giving the award to the best player on a big market team that won 93 games, but that wouldn't be a very good narrative nor a very important sounding award.

Or, it tells us who had the best narrative? But: why would we give an award for narrative? I mean, I know why the baseball writers might want to give an award for narrative - because it juices their copy - but why should we as fans buy into that notion?

I don't. I care a lot more who played the best. I can just look that up on Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference or Baseball Prospectus or whatever. I don't need writers at all to tell me the answer.

I don't. I care a lot more who played the best. I can just look that up on Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference or Baseball Prospectus or whatever. I don't need writers at all to tell me the answer.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. You can look up who had the most WAR; why do you need the MVP award to codify it for you?

I think it is far more interesting (and perhaps teaches us something about baseball that WAR doesn't) that Berra and Campanella won all those MVP awards back in the 50's, even though they didn't have the best WAR. Maybe WAR is missing something?

Also, Clint Hurdle getting Manager of the Year (which he certainly will) is the funniest thing since Rafael Palmeiro won a Gold Glove for playing DH all year.

i have been fairly tolerant of your chronic pessimism and negativity given the long years in the losing wilderness.

but this snide remark is bullsh8t.

the 2012 pirates starting rotation was burnett, McDonald, correia, rodriguez and karstens (bedard was released in august)

the 2013 pirates starting rotation is burnett, liriano, cole, locke and Morton (wandy has been hurt)

that's wholesale turnover. locke and cole are in their first year in the rotation. liriano is a guy who has not had success in 3 years.

the pirates bullpen has been outstanding all season. everyone and their cousin keeps predicting doom is right around the corner and the bullpen keeps shutting down games. the team loses it's legitimately fine closer in grilli and everyone just moves around and keeps on keeping on.

the team has a lot of veteran guys and veteran guys expect to play. but sanchez, jones, and barmes go in and out of the lineup help some and don't b8tch.

jose tabata is a talented young guy who likely expected to play and had to cool his heels and didn't complain and when he got his chance late in the season has done well

the best player on the team has played like the best player, hustles and just keeps getting better

pedro alvarez has about 17 holes in his game but his defense has inched ahead this season and he has been the power core of the team.

starling marte is puig lite in how he does some frustrating things at times but he stayed in the lineup and was great all season

there were about 132 ways this season could have gone WRONG. poor bullpen management could have sabotaged everything. giving up on alvarez by telling everyone that the defense was killing the team. i could list many things that other managers would have done

i am sorry clint hurdle is not your idea of the 'right guy'.

but in 2013 clint hurdle's team has done really well and godd8mmit in a meritocracy the manager gets some of the credit.

Yeah, I was going to ask if Hurdle had been absent for all but 20 games and let someone else manage the team, or something. Otherwise, why wouldn't he win Manager of the Year? It usually goes to someone who has brought a team to unexpected success, there are usually 2 or 3 plausible candidates, and this year, Hurdle is completely as plausible as any of them.

WAR fanatics reduce baseball to a sport for individuals, and think the point of baseball is to win "player games".

Yep. All their bile aimed at scouts; sportswriters; purported devotees of the will to win, cluchy mc-clutchiness, wins and RBIs; and the voices they hear in their heads should be reserved for Abner Doubleday, and the people at MLB who decided to have a season be 162 discrete games with team wins and losses recorded and rewarded.

Notwithstanding the cries of "OMG JUST LOOK AT THEIR WINLETS!!!," Mike Trout's and Chris Sale's performances were very low impact. It's not their fault, necessarily -- but who cares? Caring is merely a pose, not a mandate.

WAR fanatics reduce baseball to a sport for individuals, and think the point of baseball is to win "player games".

If you want the MVP award to be about team performances, you should make 40 of them and give one to every guy on the roster. Of course, they already have an award for best team performance. It's called the Commissioner's Trophy.

The MVP award was explicitly designed to be about individual achievement and the quality of an individual's performance. It says as much right in the voting guidelines: "Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense."

Notwithstanding the cries of "OMG JUST LOOK AT THEIR WINLETS!!!," Mike Trout's and Chris Sale's performances were very low impact. It's not their fault, necessarily -- but who cares?

The people who watched or bought tickets to those games, and got to enjoy seeing wins instead of losses?

Notwithstanding the cries of "OMG JUST LOOK AT THEIR WINLETS!!!," Mike Trout's and Chris Sale's performances were very low impact

Sorry to get on your case recently, Bear, but this makes no sense at all. Either a guy is good at baseball, or he isn't.

The Red Sox have the best record in the AL so far this year. They have Jonny Gomes. Is Trout more valuable than Jonny Gomes? Would you have drafted Trout or Gomes in March, with perfect foreknowledge of the 2013 season? Would you put Trout ahead of Gomes if you had to fill out a 10- (or 20- or 50-) slot MVP ballot?

If you say Gomes, then you're being consistent, if bizarre. But if you say Trout – if Trout can be more valuable than Gomes – than he can be more valuable than anybody else who plays for any winning team. It's just a matter of degree.

I care a lot more who played the best. I can just look that up on Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference or Baseball Prospectus or whatever.

I'm with you until you get here. I think that the best baseball stats, including fWAR and bWAR, have a large enough margin of error that, absent an other-wordly performance, we can't simply look up the best player on B-R. Instead, determining the best player -- I agree that should be the point of the MVP -- we need to use subjective blending of objective stats informed by watching games over the course of a lifetime of being a fan and observer.

And his good performance can be very low-impact, properly considered. Chris Sale's has been. Mike Trout's less so, but still pretty low impact.

These guys don't play in vacuums. Baseball isn't a game of 25 show ponies engaged in a skills contest. It could have been set up that way (*), but it wasn't.

(*) Indeed, there are show pony skills contests like the Home Run Derby at the All-Star Game. Nobody really cares about that. They'd care even less about a skills contest where the pitcher names a target and gets points for how close he comes to hitting it and the velocity at which he hits it -- the things the pitcher, you know, "controls."

What wins and losses? The Angels are 8 games under .500 and have been a non-factor all year; the Chisox are 28 games under .500 and have been a disaster all year.

If wins and losses are so important, then how bad would the Angels have been WITHOUT Trout? Instead of being 8 games under .500, maybe they're 15-20 games under .500.
Do those other 7-12 games not matter to the Angels and their fans?

By your definition, if a team doesn't make the playoffs, then none of their players have any value at all.
#38 hits it on the head. If you really think Trout has no value because his team sucks, then you'd be happy to list Gomes higher on 300 player MVP ballot than Trout.
If not, then stop pretending that Trout's value is meaningless because he's on a losing team.

And his good performance can be very low-impact, properly considered. Chris Sale's has been. Mike Trout's less so, but still pretty low impact.

What makes it "low-impact"? Is every game that a sub .500 team plays this season considered "low-impact" because they are sub .500?
What about games at the start of the season?
What about games against contenders?
What about games in their own division?
Are all of them retroactively "low-impact" because the team finished out of the playoffs at the end of the year?

If wins and losses are so important, then how bad would the Angels have been WITHOUT Trout? Instead of being 8 games under .500, maybe they're 15-20 games under .500.
Do those other 7-12 games not matter to the Angels and their fans?

The marginal value of those wins is lower than the marginal value of wins for teams over .500, certainly less than the marginal value of wins for teams at or near the top of their divisions.

The Angels are 8 games under .500 and have been a non-factor all year; the Chisox are 28 games under .500 and have been a disaster all year.

The games that the team in question won this year that they would have lost with a different (and inferior) player in the lineup. The Angels have won 68 games so far, and the White Sox have won 58. Presumably, those totals would have been lower if the Angels had Vernon Wells in the outfield instead of Trout, or if the White Sox had Daisuke Matsuzaka in the rotation instead of Sale.

The marginal value of those wins is lower than the marginal value of wins for teams over .500, certainly less than the marginal value of wins for teams at or near the top of their divisions.

The marginal value of wins by the Angels is much higher for an Angels fan than the marginal value of wins by the Tigers is for that same fan, regardless of whether the Angels are a good team this year or not.

Pretty much, yeah. In this case, the Angels and White Sox have been non-factors virtually the entire season.

So by logical extension of your position, then, any time spent watching games that didn't involve the winner of this year's World Series was stupid and pointless, even if you enjoyed the experience and derived satisfaction from your team's performance in it?

It's odd to me that someone who calls himself a baseball fan would state a position that cuts so strongly against the very concept of fandom.

The games that the team in question won this year that they would have lost with a different (and inferior) player in the lineup.

Actually, we don't even know that. Why? Because the variance of team wins from Pythag is larger than even the best single player's WAR. In other words, you could replay the season with Vernon Wells replacing Mike Trout, subtract the extra runs "created" by Trout from the ledger, and because of the vagaries of Pythag, get the same or better team record. If you did that eleventy billion times, Trout's value would eventually shine through, but so what?

This is a rather semantic point about which I care little, but it's just another hole in the winlet obsession.

The marginal value of wins by the Angels is much higher for an Angels fan

Actually, we don't even know that. Why? Because the variance of team wins from Pythag is larger than even the best single player's WAR. In other words, you could replay the season with Vernon Wells replacing Mike Trout, subtract the extra runs "created" by Trout from the ledger, and because of the vagaries of Pythag, get the same or better team record. If you did that eleventy billion times, Trout's value would eventually shine through, but so what?

In theory you could, but in practice, I think most fans/teams would much rather have Mike Trout in their lineup than Vernon Wells anyway, because he's the better player.

And of course, you could make exactly the same argument about any player on a winning team.

This is a rather semantic point about which I care little, but it's just another hole in the winlet obsession.

Says the man who's ignoring the MVP award's ballot instructions that specifically define value as "strength of offense and defense", and say nothing whatsoever about any sort of team context.

Trolls gonna troll, I guess.

You've measured that value?

It's been the case for pretty much every Angels fan I've ever encountered. Which is why they're Angels fans, rather than Tigers fans.

#25 A fair number of people (some of whom have actual MVP votes) are actually voting for something like BPPOTTMP. (Best Position Player On Team That Made Playoffs -- some add an additional qualifier, By Smallest Margin)

Are all of them retroactively "low-impact" because the team finished out of the playoffs at the end of the year?

Pretty much, yeah. In this case, the Angels and White Sox have been non-factors virtually the entire season.

So while the season is ongoing, and the final standings are in flux, you are essentially saying that you can't judge a player's value because you don't know where that team is going to finish in the standings?
If you can't determine if that team is a winning team or a losing team, you don't know if the players on that team are valuable?
Even better, if a team fails to make the playoffs because of a loss on the final game of the season, then any "valuable" players on that team suddenly lose all their value?

That's an excellent point. Even if one accepts the dubious proposition that Angels wins and losses (and those of other noncontenders) matter to nobody, the Angels have played a whole bunch of games against the A's, Rangers, Tigers, Indians, Royals, Red Sox, Rays, Orioles, Yankees, and whoever the heck they play from the other league. Those games must matter, and Trout made it harder for the opponents to win them.

Even if one accepts the dubious proposition that Angels wins and losses (and those of other noncontenders) matter to nobody

I don't think that's the proposition. The proposition is that the Angels' and White Sox' seasons were low-impact, that Trout's and Sale's winlets didn't translate into wins (and certainly not impactful wins), and that wins matter while winlets don't. At the end of the day, fairly or unfairly (**), Trout's and Sale's performances didn't translate into team wins and team wins is the defining measuring stick of baseball as constructed and played.

In a situation where there are candidates of essentially equal worthiness (*) who had a greater impact on the baseball season, those candidates should be favored. There's simply no need to present the Cy Young Award to a pitcher whose team is 14-13 in games he starts and whose team has been an utter non-factor in the 2013 major league baseball season. I suppose we can think of situations where he should win it, but the actual 2013 MLB season -- obviously -- isn't one of them.

(*) In other words, people other than Jonny Gomes.

(**) The close observer can't help wonder whether there is a political-ideological component to this relentless insistence on isolating individual effort and factors under individual "control" within a context plainly defined by its rules as a group endeavor. It's worth wondering whether the WAR enterprise is, in its essential motivations, an effort to remake baseball into something that everyday life -- which clearly doesn't evaluate individual qua individual performance fairly -- isn't.

At the end of the day, fairly or unfairly, Trout's and Sale's performances didn't translate into team wins

But even accepting the equally dubious proposition that only performances in winning games are meaningful, sometimes they did translate. The Angels, oddly enough, have gone 6-0 against Detroit this year. Trout went .419/.406/.710 in those six games with 3-for-3 SB. How does that not have an impact on the pennant race?

Trout's and Sale's performances didn't translate into team wins and team wins is the defining measuring stick of baseball as constructed and played.

Huh? Trout and Sale didn't help their team win any games at all? All of their value was generated during team losses?
Trout went 0-for-everything when the Angels won, and batted .600 when the Angels lost?

The close observer can't help wonder whether there is a political-ideological component to this relentless insistence on isolating individual effort and factors under individual "control" within a context plainly defined by its rules as a group endeavor.

The award being handed out isn't a group award.
It's an individual award, so how would you have people make a judgement on individual awards if you don't look at the individual and their (somewhat) discrete performances?
Otherwise, it's back to the "only goes to the best team" award, which is ridiculous.

But even accepting the equally dubious proposition that only performances in winning games are meaningful, sometimes they did translate. The Angels, oddly enough, have gone 6-0 against Detroit this year. Trout went .419/.406/.710 in those six games with 3-for-3 SB. How does that not have an impact on the pennant race?

This is completely irrelevant - you keep framing the discussion in terms of individual player performance. Detroit is going to October, regardless of what Mike Trout did. How did Mike Trout's (brilliant) line above impact the fact that Detroit is going to the postseason?

Edit: plus what #59 said.

@ 55 Ron J2: No, that is: you can't asess the value for MVP purposes in early April. You can (of course) compute individual player value in a vacuum.

I'm a business man. If I write a genuinely brilliant marketing plan now that will turn out to be completely irrelevant 8 months in the future because my IT staff isn't delivering the product and the enterprise goes bankrupt, did I create any value?

#64 I the end you're arguing that MVP is largely a function of teammates. Seems both nonsensical, contrary to the definition supplied to the voters and counter-factual. See for instance the MVPs won by Banks and Dawson. (And yeah, Dawson's MVP is indefensible by any form of reasoning. He got a lot of RBIs on a bad team)

Not "largely" a function, partially a function. There's a material component of "value" that is inseparable from team performance.

The instructions leave it to the individual voter to decide what makes a player "valuable." They do indicate that value is "strength of offense and defense." Offense and defense is "stronger" where it has more team impact and more championship season impact.

Detroit is going to October, regardless of what Mike Trout did. How did Mike Trout's (brilliant) line above impact the fact that Detroit is going to the postseason?

Trout and the Angels certainly slowed them down along the way. What I see you saying is that no games matter once the result has been determined except: well, what games do matter, at that point? Only those games won by the eventual World Champion? As many here have argued, every game while teams are still in contention is important, and players from ≤.500 clubs play in a lot of them, sometimes winning a lot of them.

Trout and the Angels certainly slowed them down along the way. What I see you saying is that no games matter once the result has been determined except: well, what games do matter, at that point? Only those games won by the eventual World Champion? As many here have argued, every game while teams are still in contention is important, and players from ?.500 clubs play in a lot of them, sometimes winning a lot of them.

But a win over Detroit doesn't provide any more value to the Angels than a win over Houston. (Not that the claim was ever "No Angel game mattered to anyone, anywhere" anyway.)

Is the claim that Trout's performance against pennant contenders provides value to teams other than the Angels and that value should be considered when considering how "valuable" Trout was?

The instructions leave it to the individual voter to decide what makes a player "valuable." They do indicate that value is "strength of offense and defense." Offense and defense is "stronger" where it has more team impact and more championship season impact.

I would say that this is the single dumbest thing I've read this month if I thought you actually believed it, instead of just posting it to wind people up.

#25 A fair number of people (some of whom have actual MVP votes) are actually voting for something like BPPOTTMP. (Best Position Player On Team That Made Playoffs -- some add an additional qualifier, By Smallest Margin)

And not even they actually do that. They reserve the top spot on their ballot for that vote, but then will down vote a guy like Wright or Trout, which pretty much eliminates any argument that they can say about the MVP being about being on a winner, if they vote for one guy on their ten man ballot who isn't on a winning team. That requirement only shows up with the first spot on the ballot. It's a contradiction that nobody ever bothers to answer.

I understand, but don't agree with, the HOF arguments that the institution is meant to honor players that excited the fans. So a pure assessment of value shouldn't be the only thing that matters there.

For the MVP, I even understand what people are saying here (you can't accumulate as much 'value' if your team isn't playing in games that 'matter' as much). That is a coherent model of thinking about things - though it does run into the problem of only seeming apply to the #1 slot. But still, I conceptually get it.

The thing that still baffles me is WHY that's a good interpretation of value. Why is the award more interesting because it's treated that way?

Would it be better for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction to be limited to only the top 10 selling books of the year? Would it be better for music critics to limit their selection of the best record to those that went platinum? After all, the goal of publishing fiction and making music is to make money, right?

If it were so easy to simply declare a definitive statistical winner of the MVP-as-best-player award, then sure it might get a little dull. But it's rarely the case! There are often competing arguments about quality of defense, whether or not to weight situational performance, where to set replacement levels, park factors, the balance between pitching and hitting, and so forth. Those are real debates. No one that I've ever talked to thinks the MVP should simply be given to the guy with the most WAR. That would be silly.

I just don't get why it's useful to have an award given to Miguel Tejada 11 years ago (rather than Alex Rodriguez), because Tejada's teammates were better. How does it improve our understanding of either player? What value is added to our lives?

Curious: If I phrase it as "Best Player Award, regardless of his relevance to the outcome of the season", would you accept that?

You're hinging your entire argument on the ambiguity of the word value. The problem with that, is that "value" is in fact explicitly defined in the voting guidelines as "contributions on offense and defense". There is simply no wiggle room to interpret the meaning of the word value the way you want. You can't spin "contributions on offense and defense" into "but only if it really, really, really counts".

The MVP is in fact a best player award, with a snappier name. By clinging to your interpretation, you are violating the intent and spirit of the award, as well as the letter of law.

The problem with that, is that "value" is in fact explicitly defined in the voting guidelines as "contributions on offense and defense".

It's defined as "strength of offense and defense," a construct perfectly consistent with (*) consideration of context. It's a fair statement to note that Bobby Thomsen's HR was "stronger" than the HR some stray Astro will hit next week.

Even if Trout is one of the few bright spots, he can't be credited for it: there is no value to distribute, because this Angel season hasn't provided any to either Anaheim fans or MLB as a whole.

That's not true. Trout has provided some value to me. I enjoy watching him play. This season has been a stinker, but it's a better season than say, the 1992 Angel season. And Trout is the reason for that. It may not be much, but it's something.

Surely you've heard the expression "but we could have finished last without you."

They aren't going to finish last. They are probably going to finish third. They aren't the Astros, and can thank Trout for that.

But this year I'm very accepting of the certainty that Cabrera will win the award. It's much different than my opinion of it last year.

Would it be better for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction to be limited to only the top 10 selling books of the year? Would it be better for music critics to limit their selection of the best record to those that went platinum? After all, the goal of publishing fiction and making music is to make money, right?

Interesting point you raise here. However, I think you can be an artistic winner without being a bestseller - talent doesn't always lead to sales, as marketing can trump quality.

I just don't get why it's useful to have an award given to Miguel Tejada 11 years ago (rather than Alex Rodriguez), because Tejada's teammates were better. How does it improve our understanding of either player? What value is added to our lives?

It doesn't - Tejada was a horrible choice. A-Rod had a historic season for an SS, and would have been a defensible choice under the "awe & amazement" clause. I would have voted for Giambi, Manny or Nomar.

The instructions leave it to the individual voter to decide what makes a player "valuable." They do indicate that value is "strength of offense and defense." Offense and defense is "stronger" where it has more team impact and more championship season impact.

I would say that this is the single dumbest thing I've read this month if I thought you actually believed it, instead of just posting it to wind people u

1: I believe that SBB believes his statement

2: I agree to the extent that it one of the dumbest things I've read this month, but the month is young.

If only performances on winning teams matter, then why don't we limit MVP consideration to performances in the wins of those teams? If Miguel Cabrera hits 2 homers and the Tigers still lose, that's as valueless as you're considering Trout's entire season to be.

They reserve the top spot on their ballot for that vote, but then will down vote a guy like Wright or Trout, which pretty much eliminates any argument that they can say about the MVP being about being on a winner, if they vote for one guy on their ten man ballot who isn't on a winning team. That requirement only shows up with the first spot on the ballot. It's a contradiction that nobody ever bothers to answer.

This is what always happens, and I suspect that if SBB filled out his MVP ballot, you'd see the same thing. It's either that, or he follows his own logic through as described in post #38.

The proposition is that the Angels' and White Sox' seasons were low-impact, that Trout's and Sale's winlets didn't translate into wins (and certainly not impactful wins), and that wins matter while winlets don't.

In that case, should Miguel Cabrera's 3 homers in this game count in his favor? The Tigers lost despite his 3 homers, so those homers contributed no actual wins to his team, although I imagine they earned him a few "winlets."

Wait, that doesn't make sense. You can look up who had the most WAR; why do you need the MVP award to codify it for you?

I don't. I don't need the MVP Award at all. I don't care who wins and I don't care about the opinions of writers. As far as I'm concerned they can stop voting for MVPs or keep voting for them if it amuses them.

This is so silly. The people harping on "value" crowing about how a great player on a crummy team has no value because their team's season has no value don't even hit on the concept of "value" in their narrow definition.

Who do you think gets more "Value" out of having a stellar player? Who do you think "Values" that stellar player more? A team getting terrible performances from 24 guys or a team getting all-star level performances from 5-10 guys?

As a fan of the White Sox in good times and bad, I can tell you I sure as #### find Chris Sale a lot more valuable to this crummy team than, say, Carlos Quentin was to a solid team that lost in the first round of the ALDS.

A team with approximately 20 holes is sunk if they don't have a player to build around. A team with 5 or 6 holes could lose an MVP level player and still hope to compete for a division title next year. I'm not saying the Tigers would be fine without Cabrera. But they'd be a whole hell of a lot more fine heading into the future than the Angels would be if Trout had to have an eyeball amputated or some such.

It seems to me that limiting the MVP award to only contending teams just makes the discussion less interesting. I don't think too many people are simply saying that the highest WAR is the automatic MVP.

As a fan of the White Sox in good times and bad, I can tell you I sure as #### find Chris Sale a lot more valuable to this crummy team than, say, Carlos Quentin was to a solid team that lost in the first round of the ALDS.

Then your conscience can be clear when you cast a vote for him as White Sox 2013 MVP.

It seems to me that limiting the MVP award to only contending teams just makes the discussion less interesting. I don't think too many people are simply saying that the highest WAR is the automatic MVP.

Nobody is saying that, at least nobody who has a functioning brain cell. War is a great tool, but anybody who says the 'war' winner = MVP regardless of anything else, is 1. a strawman who doesn't exist 2. would be an idiot on par with voting for the guy with the most rbi's on a contender.